This Forum used to be "The High Ground"


PDA






bushmaster1313
January 20, 2013, 10:50 PM
For a good long while, this Forum earned its moniker.
Now it seems that anyone who dares to agree that universal background checks are a good idea is vilified as someone not worthy of their opinion.

Fine, you know where I stand, if you have any reasoned comments that could change my mind I am open to hearing them.

However, I miss the old "High Ground."

If you enjoyed reading about "This Forum used to be "The High Ground"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M-Cameron
January 20, 2013, 10:55 PM
you come to a gun forum and flog your anti-ideals and are surprised when people arent lining up to accept you with open arms.......what a shocker!

BHP FAN
January 20, 2013, 10:55 PM
You should try telling folks ''it's magazines...not clips''...you'll get called all sorts of things. Seriously though, you have a right to say anything. We have a right not to agree with you.

philobeddoe
January 20, 2013, 10:55 PM
Man, this happens on all the forums, someone starts bellyachin' that it ain't like it was back in the day. So someone disagreed with you on the Internet. They probably have Cheetos stains on their Jockeys. Let it go.

Cheers.

Kubrick
January 20, 2013, 10:57 PM
1) will private sellers have access to NICS?

2) will it be free?

3) do we have to use the same 4473 form like a dealer? Do we have to keep said form for 20 years?

I have the right to sell my personal property to another person without jumping through a lot of hoops.

19-3Ben
January 20, 2013, 10:58 PM
You're entitled to whatever opinions you want.

The problem is, you keep proposing them to us asking us to accept them as good ideas and then you get all butt-hurt when we disagree with you. All we're doing is disagreeing. Not vilifying you.

joeschmoe
January 20, 2013, 10:58 PM
Still... NO!

NaturalDefensiveRights
January 20, 2013, 10:59 PM
Will you listen to reason? I ask, because if you're absolutely convinced it's a good idea, it's unlikely anyone will change your mind. The only thing that would change your mind is being part of history in which guns are eventually confiscated, destroyed, or made illegal. But by then, you'll be so domesticated and accustomed to all the bureaucracy, you probably won't even care.

patriot9879
January 20, 2013, 10:59 PM
My aversion to universal background checks is due to the fact that they would have done nothing to prevent the two high profile mass shootings last year. So I see them as an another tool that our corrupt govt will use to prevent law abiding citizens from owning firearms, thereby increasing their power and our servitude. I think that the animosity towards our fellow members on this site is due to our feeling that this is not a time for compromise since any compromise will only result in a reduction of our rights and freedoms as law abiding citizens.

BK
January 20, 2013, 11:00 PM
universal background checks are a good idea
It's not that your belief isn't allowed here, it's that it is an encroachment upon a human right. If I were to declare that the press should not be allowed to print anything unless they could first prove to the government that what they were printing met an arbitrary standard, then you could obviously see that I did not fully understand the freedom of the press.

Waywatcher
January 20, 2013, 11:03 PM
Bushmaster1313, agreed. :)

Larry Ashcraft
January 20, 2013, 11:04 PM
The "High Ground"? Never heard of it.

Your anti-gun arguments will not fly here.

gbran
January 20, 2013, 11:05 PM
The goal is registration, universal background checks are a step in that direction.

Waywatcher
January 20, 2013, 11:07 PM
The "High Ground"? Never heard of it.

Your anti-gun arguments will not fly here.

Your reply is as thin as a clip/magazine correctionist. That it comes from a moderator leads me to agree all the more with the OP.

I surely don't pass an ideological purity test, and I am ok with that.

bayesian
January 20, 2013, 11:08 PM
But maybe we could merge all of these threads into one big 'you think i suck? no, you suck' thread and be done with it.

At least the solvent arguments would occasionally contain useful information even if it was all "Hoppe's sucks, use Ballistol rules even if it smells like ass..."

Oh right, wrong area...

mljdeckard
January 20, 2013, 11:09 PM
Some people need to learn the difference between their ideas being criticized, and their being criticized personally.

Seriously, your opinions invite ridicule, don't act surprised.

jerkface11
January 20, 2013, 11:09 PM
You support gun control. I don't see why you expect the majority of the people here to agree with you.

M-Cameron
January 20, 2013, 11:10 PM
another thing to remember.....The High ROAD is a place where we can talk in a somewhat civilized manor and discuss ideas without bashing, name calling...


....it does not mean we have to agree with your ideas, or that you are free from criticism....



if you think THR is bad, good luck on some of the other forums.....they can be downright brutal and even threatening at times.......feel free to try some of them and then you can complain how bad it is here.

BHP FAN
January 20, 2013, 11:11 PM
on first blush, it sounds like a damn good idea, I mean who wants bad guys to get guns, right? then you realise it shuts down person to person sale, or gifting a gun to your grandson without going through a dealer, then you have taken the BG check into National Gun Regisrty territory, and no one wants a list of the guns they own in Eric Holders hands....and then you've opened a whole can of Gummi Worms.

nearmiss
January 20, 2013, 11:12 PM
How about because the federal government doesn't have the right to regulate firearms at all. "shall not" is an absolute. If a state wants to require universal background checks, it can, but point to the article, section, phrase, or clause, in the constitution that gives the feds the right to regulate firearms in any way. It's not there.

Tinker
January 20, 2013, 11:14 PM
I think that "common sense" :fire: ideas like universal background checks are the "low road" to a weakened Second Ammendment.

meanmrmustard
January 20, 2013, 11:15 PM
Your reply is as thin as a clip/magazine correctionist. That it comes from a moderator leads me to agree all the more with the OP.

I surely don't pass an ideological purity test, and I am ok with that.
The truth hurts. Pro gun control discussion is raising some eyebrows with members, wondering why on earth does somebody offer support of gun control, then post it on a pro gun forum?

That a moderator said it too isn't thin, hell, Larry's late to that party; we've been tossing the ball back and forth since Wednesday.

You have the right to agree with Bushy. We have the right to not. Seeing as this is a firearms forum, feathers will get ruffled spouting anti-venom (play on words?) here.

BK
January 20, 2013, 11:16 PM
a clip/magazine correctionist.
If you had bet me money that there were gun owners that took the whole magazine/clip thing personally, I would have lost!

Kiln
January 20, 2013, 11:19 PM
Require background checks for freedom of speech.

Words are dangerous and could be spoken by people that disagree with the federal government.

Pass background checks to ensure that bad guys aren't using free speech.

r1derbike
January 20, 2013, 11:19 PM
on first blush, it sounds like a damn good idea, I mean who wants bad guys to get guns, right? then you realise it shuts down person to person sale, or gifting a gun to your grandson without going through a dealer, then you have taken the BG check into National Gun Regisrty territory, and no one wants a list of the guns they own in Eric Holders hands....and then you've opened a whole can of Gummi Worms.Gummi Worms, disguised as deadly pit-vipers.

Anything in Eric Holder's hands is an absolute travesty of justice. And THAT is The High Road.

AR-15Nutt
January 20, 2013, 11:20 PM
Your reply is as thin as a clip/magazine correctionist

if you do not know the difference between a "CLIP" and a "MAGAZINE".., you must be an anti gun person.

Your anti-gun arguments will not fly here.
and i agree !

jerkface11
January 20, 2013, 11:23 PM
We don't even run a background check on people running for president why should I have to if I'm just trading guns with a buddy?

Ms_Dragon
January 20, 2013, 11:23 PM
"Gummi Worms, disguised as deadly pit-vipers."

Tastes like chicken! ;)

oneounceload
January 20, 2013, 11:24 PM
Bushmaster - it seems you have lived your life in the confines of the socialistic republic of NJ. maybe if you had spent some time in other states where that BS is NOT mandated by law, you would be able to see why all of the previous posters have ripped you a new one...........

It's OK, you have a lot to learn....start with a high school or middle school civics text book from the 60's where the truth was actually told and you will see what folks are talking about

Tim the student
January 20, 2013, 11:25 PM
You're entitled to whatever opinions you want.

The problem is, you keep proposing them to us asking us to accept them as good ideas and then you get all butt-hurt when we disagree with you. All we're doing is disagreeing. Not vilifying you.

+1, more or less. Although I generally don't view people who want to curtail my liberty as particularly positive.

M2 Carbine
January 20, 2013, 11:25 PM
Now it seems that anyone who dares to agree that universal background checks are a good idea is vilified as someone not worthy of their opinion.
I think THR is still pretty "high road" but you have to expect a strong difference of opinion when suggesting something as anti gun as "universal background checks" is anything but at the top of the anti gun crowds agenda.


It's hard to be totally polite when telling someone that their opinion is just crap, without saying, "That opinion is just crap".

bluethunder1962
January 20, 2013, 11:26 PM
Not sure where the anti-gun came from. All he said was something about background checks. His forum name is bushmaster. He must be pro guns. I think the government should leave all gunowners alone like everybody on here.
I do agree with him on the high road (ground) part. I used to stay on here and learned a lot from all of the people on here. There are a lot of smart people on here. BUT I do agree it has slipped away from the high road and I hardly come on here any more. I mainly just look for what is for sale on here because I think it is a trustworthy place to buy guns. If you have been on here for a long time you can say what you want and cut people down but if you are new you do have to follow the rules. I have seen where some people have posted a gun they are so proud of and mostly the same people talk trash about it. I have been attacked on here because I don't hunt. Just putting my opinion out there. There are some great people on here but also some sorry ones. He did not say anything about guns being bad or do away with them and look how he was attacked. Sorry if I offended anybody but it was nice to come on here and talk guns and learn.

rbernie
January 20, 2013, 11:29 PM
The problem is, you keep proposing them to us asking us to accept them as good ideas and then you get all butt-hurt when we disagree with you. All we're doing is disagreeing. This seems to sum it all up for me. The High Road is not about affirmation. It's about discussion. Sometimes folk will agree with you, and other times not so much.

Your views on background checks do not align with the DoJs own statistics on the issue, nor do they align with most folk's views here on THR. That does not mean that we're any less civil than before - it just means that you are on the other end of the debate.

BullfrogKen
January 20, 2013, 11:33 PM
I don't see this going any place good.


Closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "This Forum used to be "The High Ground"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!